Of note: Gender parity, 2 visible minorities, 1 Indigenous.
Comparison table below:
….The new members bring a sound understanding of the parliamentary and legislative process, which will allow them to provide high quality recommendations to the Prime Minister about who could contribute to the work of the Senate. Adding to the constitutional requirements, the members will be focused on recommendations that will achieve greater expertise in the Senate on the emerging issues and challenges facing Canada including trade, finance, artificial intelligence and technology, diplomacy and foreign affairs, criminal justice and community safety and strategic Canadian capabilities and industries.
Will continue to track nominations. As mentioned, selection of non-partisan appointments equally telling of government priorities:
…Now here we are in 2026, with a majority Liberal government and a Senate stacked with Liberal and Liberal-leaning senators, and Mr. Carney has made it clear that the good old days of unapologetic partisanship are back.
And yet there is still no Liberal caucus in the Senate to identify those past and future Liberal appointees as what they are: an extension of the government of the day, waiting for its marching orders.
The Senate may have finally reached its nadir – an unelected house stuffed with political appointees who can feign independence and thus shield the government from the consequences of their decisions.
If Liberal senators are going to function as Liberal senators, Canadians deserve the honesty of calling them that. Mr. Carney has cheapened democracy with his actions. He needs to restore the Liberal caucus in Senate to undo the damage.
Most of the commentary has understandably focussed on the formal removal of non-partisanship in appointments. But little has been said regarding the diversity of appointments, whether of minority groups, sectoral or ideological. While the initial four appointments are too few to establish a trend, half are political, three-quarters are men, one visible minority but no Indigenous. The two non-political appointees appear to be more centrist than some of the activist senators appointed under the Trudeau government:
The chamber of sober second thought is apparently too sober for Prime Minister Mark Carney’s liking, and tends to waste all kinds of time in second thought. What it needs, we are told, is more party loyalists.
So Mr. Carney appointed his principal secretary and campaign manager, Tom Pitfield, to the Senate, alongside Conservative MP Richard Martel, 65, who bolted from Pierre Poilievre’s joyless Conservative caucus for another nine years and eight months of job security.
But the PM also changed the appointment process for new senators to remove the nominal requirement of non-partisanship, thus opening the door wide to former politicians, aides and fundraisers.
It seems strange for a Prime Minister with so little partisan history of his own, but it was not the first time Mr. Carney has removed restrictions on partisanship in power. Last year, he loosened rules on the government spending on partisan ads – and now Mr. Carney’s Canada Strong campaign slogan is often heard in TV commercials.
…Trudeau was wise, I thought, to stop putting hacks, fundraisers and failed candidates into the upper chamber, and he never had to deal with any blowback.
The backroom fixers in the Liberals and Conservatives are glad to see Carney set aside Trudeau’s reforms, offering thin arguments about political tradition, but that is because they and their friends want to get in there.
It looks dirty, and Carney will wear it if these appointments go wrong.
One view is that by allowing Permanent Residents to participate in candidate selection, political parties are facilitation overall integration. In discussions I have had on political representation benchmarks, some have maintained that the overall benchmark should be the number of both citizens and Permanent Residents, rather than citizens only. I favour citizens only and Sarkonak is correct to note the pandering nature and related electoral strategies:
…Well, we’ll see how the investigation goes. Already, some onlookers are gloating, seeing Erskine-Smith’s loss as a strike of karmic justice.
Erskine-Smith was absolutely one of them. He participated in Bangladeshi flag-raisings at city hall; he dressed up in the cultural garb. When he talks about immigration, he speaks in economic terms, not cultural terms. He speaks of the tide of asylum seekers as if they’re an inevitable force of nature, and of his desire to “regularize” the status of people who are in Canada illegally — a point so radical that even the CEO of the Century Initiative told him it’s not worth talking about.
But the conservatives out there should limit their gloating and use the moment to get their own house in order. They engage in diaspora politics all the same.
Without getting into any specific ridings, it’s not unusual for nomination races to be co-opted by diaspora interests. Conservative or Liberal.
Just as Liberals allow non-citizens to vote in their nominations, Conservatives do, too. When some members of the party sought to end the practice of allowing permanent residents to participate in nomination votes, they were shut down by the rest. This is a clear vector for foreign interference.
If individual parties can’t be trusted to ensure that the gears of democracy are turned by citizens only, then their hands should be forced by legislation. And at a higher level, they need to learn that diaspora pandering is like walking through a field of rakes. It might not whack you in the face today, but there’s always a risk it will — just ask Erskine-Smith.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out given current public opinion given the excessive numbers of the Liberal government (now being reversed) but there is a “more the merrier” crowd of settlement organizations, education institutions, academics and some in the business community:
…“We are calling very clearly for a single-tier immigration system, based on permanent residency and status on arrival, that gives rights and stability—like our grandparents received when they first came to this country. We need an immigration system that reunites families, welcomes refugees fleeing wars around the world, and does not create two classes of workers.
We will reverse Prime Minister Mark Carney’s cuts to immigration levels. Through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, we will hire 3,000 immigrant caseworkers immediately to address the backlog of 1 million immigrant applications that are stuck and going nowhere.
We will end provincial rules that restrict and tie foreign workers to specific employers. We will end limits based on sector, hours, occupation, or category—restrictions that make workers vulnerable. We believe we should create a network of reception centres for refugees across the country, with real funding for shelters and housing. We also need to fix credentialling problems. Many people come to Canada because of their skills, but credentialling issues prevent them from using the skills they brought with them.”
Articles and opinions related to citizenship that I found of interest in March:
Idées | Après la loi C-3, un réveil franco-américain
This is the second article that has focussed on potential applicants from early waves of Canadian francophone emigrants to the USA. This possibility was never raised I believe in either House or Senate hearings on C-3 and its predecessors, and the focus and discussion was on second generation, not earlier generations (Indian media did flag possibility). I will be making a data request in 2027 and have asked IRCC whether their data collection will distinguish between second and earlier generations:
…“Pour comprendre l’onde de choc, il faut revenir au fameux « plafond » : la limite de première génération. En clair, les enfants nés à l’étranger de parents canadiens pouvaient être citoyens canadiens, mais ne pouvaient pas transmettre automatiquement leur citoyenneté à leurs propres enfants si eux aussi naissaient à l’étranger. La chaîne s’arrêtait après une génération née hors du pays.
Une décision rendue en Ontario en décembre 2023 a jugé ce régime inconstitutionnel dans certains cas, ce qui a forcé Ottawa à corriger le tir. C-3 permet donc la citoyenneté au-delà de la première génération née à l’étranger, mais en posant une condition de « lien substantiel » : la citoyenneté peut circuler plus loin dans la chaîne familiale à condition qu’il y ait une ancre réelle au pays, démontrée par 1095 jours — trois ans — de présence physique cumulative au Canada.
Et voilà ce qui change tout : pour beaucoup, il ne s’agit pas de « demander » la citoyenneté comme un privilège, mais de faire reconnaître un statut qui s’appuie maintenant sur des règles précises afin d’obtenir une preuve de citoyenneté. Psychologiquement, ce n’est pas la même posture.”
Pourquoi la Nouvelle-Angleterre s’enflamme
Si cette loi fait battre le cœur de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, ce n’est pas un hasard. Entre 1830 et 1970, près d’un million de Québécois ont traversé la frontière — surtout vers les villes industrielles — pour travailler dans les filatures et les manufactures. Le résultat démographique est immense : leurs descendants représentent aujourd’hui près de dix millions d’Américains.
Cette diaspora a longtemps été racontée comme une épopée ouvrière : un peuple qui quitte la terre, cherche du travail, construit des quartiers, des paroisses, des clubs, fondent des journaux. Mais c’est aussi une histoire de hiérarchie sociale : des Canadiens français devenus main-d’œuvre bon marché, comme tant d’autres groupes dans l’Amérique industrielle. Ce double héritage explique la charge émotionnelle du moment : la loi C-3 ne touche pas seulement un cas juridique ; elle réveille une mémoire.
Surtout, elle arrive des années après qu’une fierté franco-américaine s’est reconstruite « par en bas » : balados, blogues, festivals, initiatives locales. Parmi ceux qui s’activent aujourd’hui, il y a des amis à moi qui animent un balado franco-américain très écouté, d’autres qui ont fondé le PoutineFest du New Hampshire — devenu assez solide pour essaimer, avec des éditions à Burlington, au Vermont, et dans “le Maine — et d’autres encore qui tiennent depuis longtemps des blogues franco-américains. La fierté n’a pas attendu Ottawa. Mais l’accès, lui, oui.
L’Amérique pousse, le Québec attire
Pourquoi maintenant ? Parce que l’Amérique inquiète. Dans mes échanges, je sens moins une mode qu’une fatigue : fatigue politique, fatigue institutionnelle, fatigue culturelle. La citoyenneté canadienne devient un filet de sécurité pour certains : un passeport, oui, mais surtout une option familiale.
Mais réduire ce mouvement à une fuite serait une erreur. Beaucoup ne parlent pas d’abord de soins de santé ou d’élections. Ils parlent de langue. Ils parlent d’immersion. Ils parlent d’un désir de vivre — enfin — dans un endroit où le français n’est pas un folklore, mais un espace public.
Plusieurs se disent fièrement Franco-Américains. D’autres se décrivent carrément comme « Québécois », avec ce mélange de fierté et d’envie : envie d’une société qu’ils perçoivent comme plus cohérente, plus collective, moins brutale. Et ils sont lucides : tous ne pourront pas transférer leur carrière ici. Les avocats, les fiscalistes, ceux qui ont des professions encadrées le savent. Pourtant, ils avancent, parce que ce n’est pas seulement une équation économique : c’est une trajectoire.
Bienvenue chez vous »… mais préparons-nous
Soyons francs : cette loi a un impact particulier — et probablement disproportionné — sur les descendants de Québécois aux États-Unis. Elle ne déclenchera pas automatiquement une migration de masse. Les démarches restent exigeantes : prouver la filiation, retrouver les bons documents, faire valider les chaînes.
Mais la direction du courant est claire. Et le Québec doit regarder cette réalité en face : une partie de cette diaspora va frapper à sa porte, non pas comme des étrangers, mais comme des « revenants » — avec une attache réelle, un imaginaire familial, parfois un français brisé, parfois un français intact.
La question n’est donc pas seulement de savoir combien viendront, mais comment on les accueillera. Oui, la citoyenneté donne des droits. Mais l’installation au Québec implique aussi des devoirs, des choix, un ancrage. Et si une partie de cette vague devient une immigration durable, elle peut aussi être un gain : démographique, économique, culturel — et, franchement, linguistique, si ces nouveaux arrivants viennent précisément chercher le français.
Alors, oui : Québécois et Canadiens français, préparez-vous à dire « bienvenue chez vous ». Mais disons-le intelligemment : avec des parcours d’accueil réalistes, des ponts de francisation adaptés et un discours public qui évite de transformer des cousins en boucs émissaires.
Parce qu’au fond, C-3 ne fait pas que corriger une incohérence juridique. Elle réactive une vieille histoire : celle d’un peuple parti travailler ailleurs… et dont les descendants, un siècle plus tard, demandent non pas la permission, mais la reconnaissance de revenir toucher le fil.”
Rémi Francœur Franco-Américain, l’auteur est analyste politique et ancien directeur de campagnes politiques au New Hampshire. Il est installé à Montréal depuis 2015.
…”To understand the shock wave, we must return to the famous “ceiling”: the first generation limit. Clearly, children born abroad to Canadian parents could be Canadian citizens, but could not automatically transmit their citizenship to their own children if they were also born abroad. The channel stopped after a generation born outside the country.
A decision rendered in Ontario in December 2023 ruled this regime unconstitutional in some cases, forcing Ottawa to correct the situation. C-3 therefore allows citizenship beyond the first generation born abroad, but by placing a condition of “substantial link”: citizenship can circulate further in the family chain provided that there is a real anchor in the country, demonstrated by 1095 days – three years – of cumulative physical presence in Canada.
And this is what changes everything: for many, it is not a question of “asking” citizenship as a privilege, but of having a status recognized that is now based on precise rules in order to obtain proof of citizenship. Psychologically, it’s not the same posture.”
Why New England is on fire
If this law makes the heart of New England beat, it is no coincidence. Between 1830 and 1970, nearly a million Quebecers crossed the border — mainly to industrial cities — to work in spinning mills and factories. The demographic result is immense: their descendants now represent nearly ten million Americans.
This diaspora has long been told as a workers’ epic: a people who leave the earth, look for work, build neighborhoods, parishes, clubs, found newspapers. But it is also a story of social hierarchy: French Canadians who have become cheap labor, like so many other groups in industrial America. This double legacy explains the emotional charge of the moment: Law C-3 does not only affect a legal case; it awakens a memory.
Above all, it comes years after a Franco-American pride has rebuilt itself “from the bottom”: podcasts, blogs, festivals, local initiatives. Among those who are active today, there are friends of mine who host a much listened to Franco-American podcast, others who founded the PutinFest of New Hampshire – which has become solid enough to swarm, with editions in Burlington, Vermont, and in “Maine – and others who have long held Franco-American blogs. Pride did not wait for Ottawa. But access, yes.
America is pushing, Quebec attracts
Why now? Because America is worried. In my exchanges, I feel less a fashion than a fatigue: political fatigue, institutional fatigue, cultural fatigue. Canadian citizenship becomes a safety net for some: a passport, yes, but above all a family option.
But reducing this movement to a leak would be a mistake. Many do not first talk about health care or elections. They speak language. They talk about immersion. They speak of a desire to live – finally – in a place where French is not a folklore, but a public space.
Many proudly call themselves Franco-Americans. Others describe themselves flatly as “Quebecers”, with this mixture of pride and envy: desire for a society that they perceive as more coherent, more collective, less brutal. And they are lucid: not all will be able to transfer their career here. Lawyers, tax specialists, those who have supervised professions know it. However, they move forward, because it is not just an economic equation: it is a trajectory.
Welcome home”… but let’s get ready
Let’s be frank: this law has a particular — and probably disproportionate — impact on the descendants of Quebecers in the United States. It will not automatically trigger a mass migration. The steps remain demanding: prove filiation, find the right documents, have the channels validated.
But the direction of the current is clear. And Quebec must face this reality: part of this diaspora will knock on its door, not as foreigners, but as “revenants” – with a real attachment, a family imagination, sometimes a broken Frenchman, sometimes an intact Frenchman.
The question is therefore not only how many will come, but how they will be welcomed. Yes, citizenship gives rights. But settling in Quebec also implies duties, choices, an anchorage. And if part of this wave becomes sustainable immigration, it can also be a gain: demographic, economic, cultural – and, frankly, linguistic, if these newcomers come precisely for French.
So, yes: Quebecers and French Canadians, get ready to say “welcome home”. But let’s say it intelligently: with realistic welcome paths, adapted francization bridges and a public discourse that avoids turning cousins into scapegoats.
Because basically, C-3 does not only correct a legal inconsistency. It reactivates an old story: that of a people who have gone to work elsewhere… and whose descendants, a century later, ask not for permission, but the recognition of returning to touch the thread.”
Rémi Francœur Franco-American, the author is a political analyst and former director of political campaigns in New Hampshire. It has been based in Montreal since 2015.
Canadians living abroad are calling for increased turnout among overseas voters and arguing that barriers to casting a ballot could be affecting election results.
Looking forward the PROC report and recommendations. In contrast to the USA with relatively strong Republicans and Democrats Abroad, Canadian political parties do not appear to have the same interest although the Liberals seem to have a greater focus that the Conservatives (https://www.conservativesabroad.ca). The Liberals have the expansive multi-generational interpretation of C-3. As in the case of “Lost Canadians” and previous elections, the number who may be interested and vote is likely smaller than advocates believer.
Upcoming analysis on the provincial and country breakdowns for the 2025 election, sample below, Ontario and British Columbia have higher proportions than other provinces:
Timothy Veale, the director of Grits Abroad — an organization aimed at connecting Canadian Liberal voters living worldwide — said nearly five million Canadians live outside the country and roughly 3.5 million of them are eligible to vote.
Veale said the share of non-resident Canadians voting in federal elections is mired in the low single digits. He said the causes include mail-only voting, compressed timelines, uncertainty about ballot arrival and delivery and a lack of outreach from party campaigns.
Daniel Scuka, a member of Grits Abroad living in Germany, said parties need to “wake up” and encourage Canadians overseas to vote. He said Elections Canada could also be directed to do more to support overseas voting.
Veale said federal parties should see overseas voters as an opportunity.
“I’d like to see a politician ask us for their vote,” he said. “In the last election … I don’t think anybody courted any of the five million people living overseas.”
Veale said the system “needs modernization” and Canadians should be able to vote in person at an embassy, consulate or high commission. He also pointed out that several countries allow online voting.
“We have the right to vote and a 37-day election was not designed for people abroad to apply to vote,” he said. “If you get approval, then you have to wait for the ballot to be sent to you, then you have to send it back. And imagine having to navigate over 200 different national postal systems around the world.
“We’ve seen how other countries operate and we can do way better than this. It’s just a matter of will, as I see it.”
Elections Canada said in an email that 101,690 voting kits were issued to electors living outside of Canada in the last general election. Of those, 57,440 were returned on time and tallied….
As Americans in Canada prepare U.S. tax filings, lower citizenship renunciation fee offers a way out
Not to be cynical but given that Democrats abroad tend to be larger than Republicans….
The U.S. government’s decision to decrease its citizenship renunciation fee by more than 80 per cent may result in more Americans in Canada giving up their U.S. citizenship, cross-border tax experts say, as the deadline for Americans abroad to file their taxes approaches.
Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department announced that the consular services fee charged to Americans giving up their citizenship will drop to US$450, down from US$2,350, effective April 13.
Unlike Canada and most other countries, the U.S. bases its tax system on citizenship rather than residency. That means a U.S. citizen must file a U.S. tax return every year regardless of where they live. In addition, the U.S. requires Americans to report on their foreign financial accounts annually.
The deadline for filing a U.S. tax return is April 15, but Americans living abroad receive an automatic filing and payment extension until June 15, and a possible further extension to Oct. 15, if they request it. To avoid interest charges, any taxes are still due by April 15….
…Demographics is not the only reason Quebec’s influence in Canada is and will be diminishing, unless the province’s politics undergo a substantive change. Quebecers have not voted to separate from Canada in a referendum, but they have separated in some of their attitudes. In the Trump era, belonging to Canada may matter as a shield against the American president’s nonsensical threats. But otherwise, “les Québécois” appear less interested in our nation’s evolution than ever in my lifetime.
Quebec political leaders invest little time in engaging with their counterparts in Ottawa and in provincial capitals, except when specific files require it. The result is that very few politicians across the country have a deep understanding of Quebec’s part in Canada’s diversity. Additionally, recruiting highly qualified French-speaking Quebecers to work in the federal government is a challenge often lamented in Ottawa.
Justin Trudeau appointed a Governor General who does not speak French, a choice that, in earlier decades, would have been criticized not only in Quebec. There is pressure, for instance from the Alberta Premier, to appoint Supreme Court justices who cannot speak one of our country’s two official languages (guess which language it is?). Because of this lack of leadership at the national level, and as a result of French Canada’s relative decline, fewer Canadians value official bilingualism as a plus for our nation. A 2024 Léger poll showed that bilingualism was seen as positive by 70 per cent of Quebecers but only 35 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec. The Prime Minister’s rosy reimagining of Canadian history has no effect on today’s worrisome reality.
The demographic trends at play in Quebec will not only diminish its political weight. Population stagnation and aging threaten the province’s economic growth and fiscal situation. According to the economists at Desjardins, “the sustainability of Quebec’s welfare state model could be challenged.” Quebec’s leaders and population will face serious challenges in the coming years; their contribution to the federation will be the least of their concerns.
Quebecers’ votes played a crucial part in Mark Carney’s election win last year. But such scenarios, where Quebec has a significant impact on the shape of Canada’s federal government, will become fewer and far between. Because of high immigration levels outside Quebec, Canada is changing fast; in 2050, it will comprise close to 49 million people, many of them recent immigrants with no knowledge of French and understandably little attachment to the country’s bilingual status.
…In other words, party candidate selection incorporates affinity effects that give preference to visible minority candidates for all major parties in these ridings. Given this, it is less surprising that studies of election outcomes indicate that affinity effects are less important than “candidate competitiveness, Canada’s first past the post electoral system, and local context,” Elections Canada says, because those effects are effectively baked in at the candidate nomination stage.
This indicates positive discrimination for visible minority candidates in these ridings and the possible converse in ridings with lower numbers of visible minorities, largely rural ridings.
While one can make the crude case that nominating more visible minority women candidates would allow federal political parties to tick off two diversity boxes at once, the evidence indicates that this is not the case: women visible minority candidates do indeed have a higher percentage chance of being sacrificial lambs. This suggests they do experience biases in the political process across two fronts, as both women and visible minorities.
To encourage improved representation, the political parties should adopt a transparency approach similar to Senate Bill S-283 would require each party to provide annual information on the policies and programs they have enacted to increase the representation of designated groups (women, visible minorities, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities).
This could be accomplished by the chief electoral officer administering a voluntary self-identification questionnaire to nominated candidates, thus allowing for post-election reporting on candidate and MP diversity.
Canada’s federal political parties may resist this transparency-based approach, but its use in federally regulated industries and the public service for close to 30 years has proven effective.
The United States could be headed toward the largest-ever decline in representation by Black members of Congress, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in a closely watched redistricting case about the Voting Rights Act.
For decades, the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement has protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn. Its provisions have also boosted the number of seats in the House of Representatives filled by Black lawmakers.
That’s largely because in many Southern states — where voting is often polarized between a Republican-supporting white majority and a Democratic-supporting Black minority — political mapmakers have drawn a certain kind of district to get in line with the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 provisions. In these districts, racial-minority voters make up a population large enough to have a realistic opportunity of electing their preferred candidates.
But at an October hearing last year for the redistricting case about Louisiana’s congressional map, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined to issue this year another in a series of decisions that have weakened the Voting Rights Act — this time its Section 2 protections in redistricting.
That kind of ruling could put at risk at least 15 House districts currently represented by a Black member of Congress, an NPR analysis has found. Each of those districts has a sizable racial-minority population, is in a state where Republican lawmakers control redistricting and, for now at least, is likely protected by Section 2. Factoring in newly redrawn districts in Missouri and Texas, which were not included in NPR’s analysis, could raise the tally of at-risk districts higher….
…Taken together, these patterns define Canada’s distinctive condition of populism without populists: a democratic tension between demand and acceptable political expression. Canadians articulate strong grievances about elite unresponsiveness and systemic unfairnes, and yet resist leaders who adopt the rhetorical and stylistic markers of populism seen elsewhere. The appetite is for accountability and renewal, not for theatrical confrontation or institutional disruption.
For political leaders, this configuration creates a subtle but consequential hazard. Self-identifying as populist offers little reward and significant reputational risk. Canadians overwhelmingly reject figures who embody the style of American right-wing populism. At the same time, the grievances that animate populist movements elsewhere, such as distrust of elites, dissatisfaction with institutions, and perceptions of distant and unresponsive governance, are unmistakably present.
Despite this aversion to populism as a label or style, recent political developments demonstrate that Canadian politicians are increasingly being held accountable by electorates animated by populist expectations around transparency, fairness, keeping promises, follow-through, and genuine influence. Leadership challenges, caucus revolts, and relentless scrutiny signal tensions between authority and responsiveness.
This is the inconvenient democratic reality confronting Canada’s political class. Politicians of all stripes are being held accountable by voters who expect to be heard, respected, and acted upon. Parties should be reminded that in the end, those who govern must answer to those who elected them.
Multicultural Meanderings 
